Albert Lacy v. Mark Taylor

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1294 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1294 ALBERT WILLIAM LACY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK E. TAYLOR, CEO, CKHA; TAMMIE ROBERTS, Return to Work Specialists, Brickstreet Mutual Ins. Co.; CLARK D. ADKINS, M.D. West Virginia Ortho Neuro; KIM CASEY, H.R. Coordinator, CKHA; RENEE PERSINGER, Senior Claim Administrator, Encova Insurance Company; ANDREW MILLER, Record Transcriber, CAMC; NICK CASEY, Judge, Chairman of West Virginia Workers Compensation Review Board; BETH SUTTER, Clerk, West Virginia Workers Compensation Review Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (2:23-cv-00621) Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026 Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Curtis Dean, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Hawthorne Dill Battle, III, Charleston, West Virginia, Kelsie Anne Wiltse, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North USCA4 Appeal: 25-1294 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3 Carolina; Thomas John Hurney, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, Colton John Koontz, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1294 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Albert William Lacy appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because: (1) the case lacked complete diversity; (2) Defendants Casey and Sutter had absolute judicial immunity; (3) the remaining defendants were not acting under color of law; (4) the core of Lacy’s claims pertain to state law; and (5) the Rooker- Feldman * doctrine barred any attempt to relitigate an unfavorable state court determination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lacy’s motion to schedule oral argument and affirm the district court’s order. Lacy v. Taylor, No. 2:23-cv-00621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 21, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 3